If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

In 1986, the Reagan administration made a surprising move. Secretary of State George Schultz called career diplomat Edward Perkins.

"He said, 'There are people around the president who believe that it is time to send a black ambassador,'" recalls Perkins. "He said, 'But not necessarily for the right reasons.'"

Schultz asked Perkins to think about the job overnight, but warned him that the appointment was so controversial that he couldn't talk to anyone but his wife about it. Perkins thought it over.

"My wife was the one who said 'You took an oath of office to go where needed when needed," Perkins says. "So how can you say anything but, 'Yes, I'll go'?"

As I've said before, controversial ambassador appointments are meant to send a message. Perkins was selected specifically to force the Apartheid regime in South Africa to accept an African American diplomat, and he was also selected because his past service with the State Department made him a thoroughly professional choice. It was meant to be a provocative act that communicated our displeasure with their policies, and presented them with a competent, capable career diplomat. Are you saying that Obama is acting in a similar manner towards the Dominican Republic, and if so, why is he doing so? Why would he choose to deliberately alienate an ally, unless there is a critical policy which he wishes to challenge, and why this particular country?